Anarchy101 is for any questions about the theory of anarchism, anarchist movements, anarchist opinions on certain situations or current events, or even socialist or communist theory in general. No question is too basic (or advanced!) to ask, so don't be shy :)

When posting...

Do a quick check to see if your exact question has been answered before.

Read the "Anarchism in a nutshell" section of the sidebar.

Use a descriptive post title.

Good: "How does the state support capitalism?", "A few questions regarding natural rights and communism."

Bad: "I don't understand.", "A few questions."

IRC room

Anarchism in a nutshell

Anarchism is a social movement that seeks to abolish oppressive systems. Anarchists advocate a self-managed, classless, stateless society where everyone takes collective responsibility for the health and prosperity of their community.

Anarchists are against coercive hierarchy. Anarchists believe that power corrupts, and that everyone should be treated equally.

Anarchists seek to reduce or even end violence and oppression. The increasingly frequent misrepresentation of anarchism by the media to be about violence, nihilism, or disorder is completely false.

All anarchists are anti-capitalism and anti-state. Capitalism is the economic system where investors and landlords are allowed to extract wealth from the economy without contributing goods or services back. Under capitalism, actual workers have little autonomy, or control over themselves. Instead, they are controlled by politicians and bankers.

Anarchists advocate socialism instead of capitalism. Under socialism, workers have direct control of the means of production, or the land, factories, and offices. Through democratic organization, anarchists seek to remove the abusable systems of power that bosses and politicians leverage today to unjustly rule over society. Anarchists want to give everyone complete control over that which affects them.

Most anarchists are communists, and advocate a "classless, moneyless, stateless, society." Others are mutualists, and advocate "free market socialism". Anarchist society has no central authority, but instead consists of interconnected communities that use direct democracy (specifically, consensus) to organize themselves without rulers or bosses.

Resources

General notes

Please do not debate, or post in an antagonistic manner. /r/Anarchy101 is only intended for educational discussion, not to "disprove" anarchism. Consider /r/DebateAnarchism if you are interested in debate.

Well, as a mix of an anarcho-transhumanist and anarcho-syndicalist myself, I don't think that modifying fetuses (feti?) is really the right thing to do, because of the lack of consent. Rather, I'd prefer to wait for technologies such as gene therapy to develop so that those of us who want to can alter ourselves.

Appeal to nature is not a valid ethical argument. In fact there are many fascists who say that racism is desirable since it promotes evolution. they often spout pseudoscience about genetic influence on IQ, which is why they advocate racial integrity to breed "better" humans (Aryan). Fascism and eugenics go hand in hand.

I'm talking about ensuring my kid pops out with an IQ of 200 who can run the 100m faster than an Olympic sprinter.

this is also problematic. IQ is really really awful measurement of intelligence. intelligence itself is a concept impossible to define. saying that it is your duty to have a child with an IQ of 200 implies that IQ of 200 is more desirable than IQ of 100, which is no different than saying white people are better than black people, men women, etc. does that make sense?

also it's not just an issue with IQ itself, any other measurement or scientific approach to intelligence will have this same problem.

The issue isn't so much that as more, like, people deciding that certain examples of neurodiversity are less valuable that nuerotypicallity. (The first things to come to mind being of course the eugenics campaign against those with Down's and the Autistic)

You may be the exception, and you're completely legitimate in stating your preference to be autistic. That said, I find it very difficult to believe that most people with autism or other such conditions, diseases, etc., would choose to to keep those conditions instead of not having those conditions.

Also, you would not be prevented. You already exist. There's not much wrong with preventing negative genetic conditions, or other preventable conditions, if the ability to do so is there.

I cannot imagine anyone consenting to be autistic, or having down's, or any other similar condition given the choice, if they knew what having/not-having said condition would entail.

This is true. Almost all autistic people I've met or seen in various forms of media will say they are proud to be autistic and would never want it taken away from them. But I think the point Syntrel is trying to make is that most will state this based on their context and history and the fact that they already exist as an autistic person. Autism is a part of who you are, so of course it's natural you would reject the notion of that part of you, such a significant part, being taken away. But if you were never given the chance to be autistic, I agree with Syntrel, I don't think that's something you'd be upset about down the track.

I don't wish to trivialise your experience of autism, so please understand I'm not directly comparing the two - just using my experience as a launchpad for empathy - but having been born left-handed I can definitely see where you are coming from on this. In many ways, being left-handed is disabling, yes there are advantages (we tend to fall both on the lower and upper extremes of most ability curves so they appear flattened), but these are arguably outweighed by the disadvantages, given living in a right-handed world. We experience excess morbidity and mortality in some areas, for example, have more accidents, etc. However, given the choice to have my left-handedness corrected prior to birth or in early childhood, even having lived half a life and seen the (albeit modest) problems it can cause, I'd still choose to be born a leftie (in every sense!)

While eugenics is definitely something to be wary of, consent isn't something that can enter the picture either way. Selecting sperm/embryos, unlike other non-consensual acts done on children like circumcision, isn't something that the child can make a decision about later in life. Regardless of whether you choose to have a designer baby or go the natural route, the child has no ability to consent to your decision. Once the choice is available to you, there is no way of making that choice that doesn't override whatever the child's wishes would turn out to be.

Yup, It's that person's body, and they should be able to do anything they want to it or organisms contained within, including what I spoke of in my original comment, however, I don't think that things such as sex selective abortions or nuerotype selective abortions are good. (Though if someone wants one, they should have access)

they should be able to do anything they want to it or organisms contained within

That's an interesting mix of host/fetus rights. I personally am not sure how I feel about the whole idea of the rights of an unborn fetus. I lean toward pro-choice because I can't think of a strong-enough reason that a fetus should have rights. But I'm very curious as to how you could simultaneously be pro-choice, while still believing that the fetus should not be tampered with until birth, even when the outcome is intended to be toward his or her benefit. This seems especially strange to me from a transhumanist perspective.

I suppose the best way to describe it would be that I don't think people should make assumptions of what others want before they have a chance, for instance, the forced "correction" that intersex infants are often forced to undergo.

Deafness I have not enough information to pass judgement not, however, the vast majority of us do not want to be "cured", as being autistic is a perfectly valid variant of the human condition. I'd recommend you read some of GoldenHeartedRose's statements on the matter.

You're abusing the term hierarchy. It doesn't mean any and all tree-like structures. Regarding authority, it means people ranked, the power or dominion of the hierarch. Modify yourself all you like, just don't think that means you're entitled to exert control over others. As such, I'd recommend you let your children decide for themselves. I'd also recommend watching Gattaca...

There are people with vastly different genetic propensities now. Differently abled does not mean superior / inferior. More importantly, the ease or difficulty imbued by whatever traits does not guarantee they are put to use nor that they can not be matched by another willing to put forth more effort. A simple example would be things like (formerly known as) asperger's and classic underachievement. But again, anarchist opposition to hierarchy pertains to authority. Expertise without an ability to force compliance is not hierarchy.

I know this is old, but I can't help but respond, in what sense is there something as "objective" superiority? There is only creatures more adapted to their environment, but no special status, no teleology to life.

I guarantee you if I ran into a person who had an IQ double mine, who who what 6'5 and super-attractive, I wouldn't consider them superior to me. I don't see an objective standard.

With genetic engineering it seems to me that you would have either A) state regulation of peoples' genes, and making super-soldiers, war viruses, and super-drugs to control people, or B) corporations altering peoples' genes for profit and control and releasing viruses they can treat for money, and price-gouging people addicted to their super-drugs, or C) public access where insanely antisocial people can make super-viruses or super-drugs for revenge or madness, or D) public access with social inequality and bureaucracies where people are excluded based on managerially-determined personalities and behaviors. In any case I see social hierarchy and peoples' power exceeding their sphere of empathy.

I've never identified as an anarcho-transhumanist because I consider anarchism and transhumanism to be unrelated, but I am both.

My view is, as long as you don't think it gives you any kind of moral, ethical, or legal superiority, it isn't hierarchy in the relevant sense. I understand hierarchy to be a trait of relationships, and not a simple inequality.

Man's natural inclinations and nature will be completely manipulatable and an person with enough brains (mechanical or natural) will be able to use these newfound and increased vulnerability of people for their own benefit. Making people in your society technologically dumber than you? Stunting their growth? It's all possible when humans become mechanized. Man's natural being is one in which he is at harmony with himself, his species, and nature. The transhumanist, in wanting man to be advanced beyond humanity is, almost by assumption, is not in harmony with any of these things. Transhumanism inherently rejects these harmonies. The lust for more, and the will to be better, greater, faster, stronger, smarter- are all simply expressions of 1) personal belief in human inadequacy or - that'd be nonsense to say) 2) the rejection of man's nature and his being. Both assumptions point to misanthropy. The transhumanist is not at harmony with nature- with their will for man to escape biology and become synthetic, with the self- with the will to be better, smarter, etc., or with his species, with the will for humanity as a whole to be better, rather than improving man's condition. It would be a negation of humanity, and therefore revolutionary discourse, to be transhumanist, in my opinion.

Those with sentiments like mine would almost certainly be stuck at a biological low-end. It makes no sense not to expect that sociopaths would not take advantage of this technology. The rich would undoubtedly have more access, and there you'd find inequalities in capitalism made biological. Technological advancement in today's society is already monopolized and is made part of a false-scarcity system. Transhumanist technologies would undoubtedly be made a part of that. Economic, and therefore political, and therefore societal hierarchies, would be made biological- transhumanism would invite dystopia, I feel.

I don't mean it as spiritual or in any kind of Luddite sense- I'm just talking about how humans feel about themselves, act in relation to their fellow humans, and how society operates. I also don't mean that in any naturalist sense- just when things are in mutually positive relationships

I'm not a transhumanist, but I don't think you're right when you say that if a human wants to improve their (naturally or mechanically) body they aren't in harmony with themselves and nature. Also, I don't think this feeling of harmony is even felt by all people.